Will Altitude Tents be banned?

Waz, jeesh, you are so stupid you don't understand the post. your argument isn't even an argument, and you can't see it. So there!

To qoute Wttbb(aka the "Dude") - my argument is the true reflection of some crap or other

Tess Tahs-Tirroan wrote: ?Yeah, you've just got it all figured out. I wonder why USADA and WADA haven't snapped up someone of your obviously high caliber with so much experience and knowledge. I bet they're watching this forum, expect a job offer any second now.?

Yup, that was exactly what I expected, a job offer from my post. You are one WITTY bastard. You should expect a call from Jay Leno or ?Whose Line is it Anyway? with that type of sure-fire quick-wittedness. Guess what? I was ASK-ING?.should those records deserve asterisks someday? Clearly they do not deserve them now, but what if these tents are banned soon, and it is proved that these athletes used the tents. That would make the records blemished in some people?s minds.

And why? Because I am buying Marathon Man?s assertion that: ?Thus the oxygen/nitrogen ratio of the gases has changed from the 20%/80% ratio that is in atmospheric air. So this gas mixture cannot be described as air.? If that is true (and no, I have not seen it PROVEN), then these tents ARE very similar to the drugs that cause your body to naturally produce EPO and NOT exactly the same environment as breathing at altitude. This is a gray area at best. And yes, the ?air? (rAIR if you will) is ?man-made? or ?man-manipulated? as I stated earlier(?a don?t getter,? is that OK?). HEPA air filters don?t give you a large competitive advantage, and thus they are no banned. The same with Army boots, Mr Tess Tahs-Tirroan. Large competitive advantage is only part of the equation.

And Edith (God love you Edith, you make less sense than anyone on this board this side of Dunes Runner, and that is why your debate with him was one for the ages), I guess any point that might hurt PR?s rep in your mind is bad, right? You are blinded by your love for her just as Dunes Runner is blinded by his dis-like of her (and/or his love of the Russian OY). Waz, Marathon Man and I are not saying PR is a cheater because of the tents. She is NOT breaking the rules, there is NO debate there. The debate is: should these tents be banned? Are they more similar to legal altitude training/living, or more similar to drug use? It is a GRAY area. But Marathon Man & was (and I believe myself) have brought up some points that clearly show there is some good reason for questioning the legality of these items. Edith wrote: ?What ethics, when? If *Anyone* can afford to do nothing but train and run to enhance their performance, then they can also afford an altitude tent so what is the *unfair* deal here? Just an out-dated distinction up your ass between *artificial* vs *natural* and it is bs, just like *amatuer* vs *pro*. ? Wrong, wrong, wrong. So questions of ethics is not involved in the issue of what is legal and what is not?? Of course they are. Can you cut a course and get away with it? It does not harm your body to do so? But it is unfair, and considered ?cheating.? Firstly (for ALL of you saying: ?but sneakers are not banned, and artificial training items like bikes, weight machines, etc are not banned?? and so on, and so on), there is no training equipment( a tent is not what I mean, see weights, treadmills, etc) that is illegal, and there are very few rules about what you can wear in competition (those are OTHER issues/rules). The bottom line:

Something is banned on a basis of 3 considerations (this is THE issue, right?? WHY is something banned?):

1. ETHICS/UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE?: Obviously Steroids and EPO are banned largely for this reason. But not only for this reason. Eating lots of carbs helps you a lot. But is it really dangerous?? Honestly (Yes, I know ANYTHING in extreme is dangerous, please spare me that one)? No. And, yes, if EPO & steroids were 100% safe, they might not be banned (as some have pointed out). Yet, if they were only harmful, but did not give a big competitive advantage, would they banned? See below.

2. DANGEROUS TO THE ATHLETE? Again, steroids and EPO qualify here too. But as I asked above, if they were JUST dangerous, and did not help the athlete would they be banned/tested for? Of course not. There are obviously recreational drugs that offer no competitive advantage that are not banned or tested for! Both reasons are considered (it is as much about competitive advantage as it is about danger). And they go hand in hand, because if something helps you a lot, you might use it a LOT. And if using it a lot could hurt you?

3. IS IT ?UNNATURAL?? Even though this is the grayest of areas, and maybe the least important factor in determining what is legal or illegal, I do believe it is a consideration of the governing bodies. If some substance is in food, I think is not as frowned upon. Red meat has creatine, iron, etc?and these substances are not banned but might help you a lot. But again, no one has proven creatine is truly dangerous (not like EPO or steroids at least. There is anecdotal evidence of cramping?that?s not much) or really offers some huge advantage to an athlete(again, unclear how much). There is some advantage, it does not seem too dangerous and it is found in food. Bingo, not banned!! (if in the future it ends up failing one of the 3 criteria in a big way, that could change). Shooting something man-made into your body with a needle? That seems a little less natural. NOT the most important factor, but nonetheless, one that EPO and Steroids again fail in my mind.

Let?s look at a few other examples:

CAFFEINE: 3. It occurs in food, thus ?natural? 1. it can help you a bit, and 2. is not considered very dangerous. But drinking 80 cups of coffee might stop your heart. So?.over certain levels it is banned, because of reasons 1 & 2 prevail together: it offers some advantage, and therefore athletes might overdo it for that reason, which is an issue since it is potentially harmful in large amounts. Maybe it should not be banned since it IS natural, the level of improved performance is questionable, and the danger level is low. Interesting.

BREATHING SPECIAL TENT-AIR?

1. Large competitive advantage? Absolutely. More than altitude training? That answer could settle the future of this issue.

2. Dangerous? Questionable, but I am sure if used improperly, sure. And since it offers a big advantage?might people abuse it? (but yes, that can said about a lot of things). More easy to abuse/potentially dangerous than living at altitude. I would think so: the air could be manipulated to ANY level potentially. You can only live so high up!

3. ?Unnatural?? If this ?air? is man-made, and does not exist anywhere naturally (as MM contends), then it would fail that test. Even if, the air is very similar to air at altitude, is this process less natural then living somewhere? I KNOW?.this is opinion, but I think most would say: yes, less ?natural.?

So the Tent appears to be YES on rule 1, and a qualified probably/maybe on 2 & 3. Does that make it contender for being banned someday? Quite possibly.

LIVING/TRAINING AT ALTITUDE:

1. Yes. Less than the tent? Not sure, that is where it gets interesting.

2. Again, maybe, someone could go to Everest and try and do intervals at 29,000 feet. That would probably kill you! But is that mire likely to happen, or is someone more likely to use the tent to some unhealthy extreme? Sure, it is conjecture.

3. Of course, yes, completely ?natural.?

How did altitude living/training fair?

1 Yes, 2) likely no 3) No. Not banned.

Of course there is a 4th factor: can you test for it?? If you are using Hematocrit levels, a qualified yes on both tents and altitude training(unless the person is a freak of nature). If not?? Probably not. With tents, maybe someday. Someday nothing might be detectable. Things will still be banned, and tents could be one of them. I think they are questionable at best, and should likely be banned.

Is using a tent an UNFAIR competitive advantage? If so, how?

In response to the thread's question, " Will oxygen tents be ban?" NO, when this is all said and done-the athletes

will still have the right to continue using them.

Vipam

dunes runner wrote:

It would not affect the mixture in a desirable manner.

Mostly co2 would be increased and o2 decreased. You wouldn't be able to keep breathing from the bag for very long.[/quote]

I've got it! I can poke a few very small holes in my paper bag, thereby co2 concentration low enough that I won't pass out from co2 poisoning, but it would still limit the o2 so that it would be "hypoxic" - meaning less oxygen then I would normally breathe at sea level. I can get the benefits of the tent, without the tent! Geez, I hope the IAAF doesn't ban my hypoxic paper bag invention...

[quote]

*And Edith (God love you Edith, you make less sense than anyone on this board this side of Dunes Runner, and that is why your debate with him was one for the ages), I guess any point that might hurt PR?s rep in your mind is bad, right?You are blinded by your love*

What's that about, Shakespeare? Radcliffe happens to be right up there with your *ethical* bullcrap so what's got in your eye?

If the rules get changed to ban tents, training at altitude or anything else PR does or doesn't do, it won't retrospectively (that's a principal in law you know?) hurt PR because it will apply to everybody and you put your stupid stars around every result in the book if you want.

What will be achieved if this stuff is banned? -- just another way of cheating! In the interests of fair play would elite athletes please sign below: are you 1.A CHEAT? or 2.A LIAR?

*won't retrospectively (that's a principal in law you know?) hurt PR*

Oh fu*k shouldn't that be *principle*, Shakespearo?

Edith

Kurdt with respect to the O2/N2 gas ratio this has been discussed before - here are the main points that came up:

The accuracy of Hypoxico's altitude-simulating tent was recently tested in the Exercise Physiology Laboratory at San Diego State University.

   Samples of air from inside the tent were taken at two time-points over an 8-hour period on two separate days within two weeks. Analysis of oxygen by an Applied Electrochemistry oxygen analyzer (Sunnyvale, CA) revealed concentrations of 14.82% and 14.86% O2 on Day 1 and 2, respectively, with essentially no variability overnight. These percentages correspond to the amount of oxygen available to the body at an altitude of 2800 meters (9,000 ft). Thus, the tent is highly accurate in creating a degree of hypoxia for stimulating the acclimatization process.

   A number of studies have demonstrated improved athletic performance by supplementing one's exercising regimen with a "live high and train low" altitude-training protocol. The Hypoxic Tent System provides precisely the low-oxygen environment required to enable the "live high" part involved in these studies. Thus, whether preparing to race at altitude, or wishing to maximize performance potential for competition at sea-level, the tent system produced by Hypoxico Inc. is an excellent way to introduce this "live high, train low" element into a training program."

 Jeanne F. Nichols-Bernhard, Ph.D.    Professor of Exercise Physiology, San Diego State University.

marathonman

RE: completely wrong 8/10/2002 8:16AM - in reply to Question Reply | Return to Index | Report PostI take it that you refer to my last post - no worries

I'll comment for you, trust me my facts are correct, I check everything before I post it and I've been researching into this area now for two years.

I don't want to sound like a wise guy, I just want to make the points clear to everyone about this because is it is an interesting debate. Also I enjoy reading all the posts because of this.

OK read what is written carefully - this is the sentence with which you are confused:

"These percentages correspond to the amount of oxygen available to the body at an altitude of 2800 meters (9,000 ft)"

The crucial point is that they say 'corresponds to the amount of oxygen available to the body at an altitude of 2800m' .

They do not say 'which represents the composition of air at an altitude of 2800m'

At 2800m the composition of air will still be approx 20% Oxygen, 80% nitrogen. Because the overall atmospheric pressure is less at high altitude however, there will be less molecules of gas per unit volume.

So when you breath in one litre of air at 2800m, there will be less molecules of gas (including oxygen) in that litre than if you breath in 1 litre of air at sea level because the atmospheric pressure is greater at sea level. In this litre of air that you breath in at 2800m there will be less molecules of oxygen . That's the point that they make when they say 'oxygen available to the body'.

To simulate the atmospheric air of an altitude of 2800m at sea level, the machine will pump in more nitrogen to bring the oxygen percentage down to around 14%. This mixture of gases that you breath in the tent will have around the same number of oxygen molecules per unit volume as air at an altitude of 2800m BUT there will be more nitrogen in this gas than in atmospheric air.

This ratio of oxygen and nitrogen has been changed and therefore it cannot be qualitatively described to be the same as air.

Hope this is clear

I find it strange that people seem to attack the things I say quite strongly without even reading my posts or the articles that I give links to carefully.

I am not saying that one thing is right or wrong, all I am saying is that when I look at the science behind how things work with respect to performance enhancement then it is actually quite difficult to distinguish what can be regarded as ethical or unethical is actually very difficult and I think that it is fair to say that this area needs some sensible discussion if you want a consistent set of rules which govern athletics.

Thanks.

[quote]

*To simulate the atmospheric air of an altitude of 2800m at sea level, the machine will pump in more nitrogen to bring the oxygen percentage down to around 14%. This mixture of gases that you breath in the tent will have around the same number of oxygen molecules per unit volume as air at an altitude of 2800m BUT there will be more nitrogen in this gas than in atmospheric air.

This ratio of oxygen and nitrogen has been changed and therefore it cannot be qualitatively described to be the same as air.*

Thanks man,

two questions:

1. Is there a benefit from the higher nitrogen content in this tent (ie besides the lower oxygen yield)?

2. Are these tents intended for a live high-train low regime or are there benefits for a live high-train high regime too?

Slg Edith

Acutally, Khalid Khannouchi set his record in London after months of training in the volcanic highlands of Mexico with running legend German Silva. He did not have his tent installed in Ossining by then. So even if you don't like the "nitrogen houses" you cannot asterix his record. Ignore what top athletes due; train for yourself and enjoy sports. Do you love winning or do you love running? Which is more important? Some live to train, others train to live. I am of the later

The benefits of live high train low outweigh the benefits of train high live high, as Marathonman, myself and Kurd T have already explained. Reasons being that the athlete does not have to put up with other enviromental factors of training at high altitude, acclimatisation (detraining), terrain etc.. as marathonamn explained earlier also in a previous post the response of the kidneys in the production of EPO is greater with a train low live high set up and greater still with shorter periods of exposure to high and low altitude levels (intermitent exposure).

I read the paper in your link, and while intrigueing, i believe that it does little but to provoke an interesting debate; the research described there in is VERY preliminary, and for the most part, does not even pertain to the pattern of intermitent hypoxia (described as pattern "b" in the paper, i believe) that would best characterize sleeping in an altitude tent. I certainly don't want to say that what is implied in the research cannot eventually result in externally valid conclusions purporting physiological differences arising from intermitent vs. continuous hypoxic conditions. that would not be wise. However, even if all that is implied in your post comes to fruition, do we still conclude that altitude tents afford athletes an unfair advantage? What about those that live in a village at the base of a mountain and make a 4hr trek each way through a high mountain pass to a village on the other side of the range to trade once every day? Should they be banned from competition in the event that they take up endurance sport?

waz wrote:

The benefits of live high train low outweigh the benefits of train high live high, as Marathonman, myself and Kurd T have already explained. Reasons being that the athlete does not have to put up with other enviromental factors of training at high altitude, acclimatisation (detraining), terrain etc.. as marathonamn explained earlier also in a previous post the response of the kidneys in the production of EPO is greater with a train low live high set up and greater still with shorter periods of exposure to high and low altitude levels (intermitent exposure).

So how come the fasted man and fasted woman over 26.2 train high, not low?

Edith

Marathon man, your argument is not helped by the fact that you continue to be wrong about the technology of the Hypoxico system. It does not pump more nitrogen into the air. It takes air and filters out oxygen through a ceramic molecular sieve, just like a HEPA filter filters out dust and pollen. Some of us think that air with some oxygen removed can still be air. Just because you say it isn't "air" doesn't make that a fact. Also, as you qoute, "The crucial point is that they say 'corresponds to the amount of oxygen available to the body at an altitude of 2800m'..." From a respiratory physiology standpoint the effect is the same as being at 2800m. Why do you think that your personal definition of "air" is the only correct one. Many of us have a different personal definition of "air" which includes the "stuff" pumped into an altitude tent system.

Khannouchi made a statement just this week saying that he had used the Tent and found it extremely beneficial in the build up to Chicago. I can't imagine he was using his tent at altitude.

First, I know nothing about altitude tents, nor am I a chemist or anything like that. Ok, so if you remove the oxygen from the "air" and the pressure remains the same then you need to replace the oxygen with something. Just what he said above, the ratio of oxygen to "something" is different. Unlike at altitude, where the percentage of oxygen is the same just not as dense (the thin air of altitude). I think what he is saying is that the elements that make up "air" at sea level and at altitude are of the same ratio. What you are saying is that there is less oxygen in the altitude tents. This is about the composition of air vs the density of air as determined by pressure at altitude.

Thankyou for taking the time to read the paper and your comments. I appreciate that.

Yes I agree that the research is preliminary and that this is a relatively new field - most of the stuff published on intermittent hypoxia studies has only come out in the last two years. I also agree that the protocols of intermittent hypoxia are not well described in the paper but it is just a review article and they will not go into great detail into the experimental protocols.

You may be aware however that the HIF-1 transcritpion factor which is mentioned on the review showed higher and more sustained levels in human cells following the intermittent hypoxia protocol compared to the sustained hypoxia protocol. This transcription factor also regulates the transcription of the EPO gene. Remember that genetic research carried out on the HIF-1 transcription factor has lead to the development of drugs such as \'repoxygen\' which are now being tried on patients with chronic renal failure so research at a genetic level can eventually lead to developments in altering things at a physiological level.

OK I know that you only want published data but I can tell you that work has been done on human kidney cells and it is shown that there is a significantly higher level of EPO produced by these cells following an intermittent hypoxia protocol of 1/2 hr on/off protocol as opposed to a continuous hypoxia protocol. This is most likely to be a result of the higher levels HIF-1 transcription factor which was also seen in these cells following the intermittent protocol. I have seen this data at some presentations so that\'s all I can tell you if you want evidence. This work will be published I guess in the next year or so, it is part of a bigger project looking at genetic responses to hypoxia in humans.

I think that this does take the research a step up to what can happen at the physiological level. I have also mentioned that there have been some experiments using an intermittent hypoxia protocol on humans does suggest a higher EPO response following this protocol although looking at that evidence objectively myself I think that several other factors need to be accounted for before one could say for sure - I did say that this result was preliminary in an earlier post. How people interpret that is up to them really.

I just think that these studies point towards another potentially different way in using an altitude tent to gain an added advantage.

I am not particularly for or against using an altitude tent but as you say I do think that it does pose a tricky dilemma when you try to consider what should be allowed or disallowed in sports if you want sports regulated with regards to performance enhancement. I think that one should consider the research done in this area when thinking about this.

Thanks.

hey how about we ban any training or running prior to races?

that way we can be sure no one has any unfair advantage

waz wrote:

Khannouchi made a statement just this week saying that he had used the Tent and found it extremely beneficial in the build up to Chicago. I can't imagine he was using his tent at altitude.

KK trained at altitude prior to his most recent WR, which was run at London. This was also prior to the installation of the altitude room in his home in NY. Therefore, the WR was set by an athlete who was training at high altitude without the benefit of the tent.